Goodwin 1
Ben Goodwin
Dr. Geneva Smitherman
ENG 812
December 8th, 2010
A Comparative Analysis of AAL Markers and Minstrel Stereotypes in Film
Introduction
In “African American English,” Lisa Green discusses methods filmmakers choose to represent
“Blackness.” Though Blackface in the literal sense has fallen out of use since the end of the Minstrel
tradition and the early days of film, she explains that “Figurative Blackface” utilizes Ebonics laden dialog
along with other African American Language (AAL) elements such as discursive practices, rhyming, and even
“sentence markers” (88). Several examples reveal how films simulate “blackness” by using AAL in
characters they wish to present as Black, to enhance the ‘urban’ quality of a setting or a White/Latino
character ( 88). As the Blackface of old almost always presented overblown and downright mistaken
representations of “Blackness” for the sake of entertainment and profit, the use of Figurative Blackface by
filmmakers begs the question of what language is presented and if it continues to construct the racist
archetypes of Blackface minstrelsy. This research is aimed at exploring this concern through a comparative
analysis of two films each from the Blaxsploitation and Modern eras, documenting the presence and
specific usage of AAL and character stereotypes.
Literature Review
Blacks in Film
In order to properly background this specific study, a more general understanding of Black film and
Black language must be reached. Thus, this paper will first explore the origins of “Blackness” in cinema and
the initial place of Black performers, how both of these factors evolved over time, and finally why film is an
important area of study and how language ties into it. Building on this understanding will be a
consideration about the nature of Black language and its relationship with Black culture and identity as
seen by scholarship and an explanation of the specific language markers that will be utilized for this work.
Goodwin 2
Arguably the first and definitively the most pervasive presentation of “Blackness” to the wider
America audience were Minstrel shows. Minstrel shows emerged in the 1830’s and 40’s as the national art
form of the period and primarily featured white actors in Blackface (typically burnt cork and other makeup
or effects used create a stereotypically obtuse depiction of an African American) and contained skits,
speeches, musical numbers, slapstick, and dances—all comical and for the most part designed around the
humorous (mis)representation of “Blackness” (Mahar 9). How-To guides for Minstrel shows featured
instructions on how to supposedly mimic Black dialect and modes of expression—a clear indicator that
from the get-go language was used to construct “Blackness” in performance (Bean 171). However
inauthentic these performances may have actually been, they were presented by the performers as
completely authentic, and thus for most Americans were the only source of information with which to
conceptualize “Blackness” (Watkins 82). This was still the case even when Minstrel shows came to be
considered as racist and unfair in their representation of “happy” slaves and even as Blacks themselves
became a part of Minstrelsy—because the history of the art and audience expectations forced them to
submit to the same old stereotypes (Sweet 28). As Bogle presents in his text Toms, Coons, Mulattoes,
Mammies, and Bucks, this tradition led to these five main stereotypes—created during the Minstrel era—
dominating the legacy of Blacks in film. In the beginning of film, White performers continued to utilize
literal Blackface to create these same archetypes. Then, Black performers were forced to conform to the
stereotypes expected of them and even to this day the vestiges of this origin continue to taint and influence
the way “Blackness” is presented on the screen (Bogel).
A key element presented in texts about Black performance revolves around the state of ignorance
that both the general public and those in control of Hollywood have traditionally held towards the true
nature of Black culture and experience. In Slow Fade to Black in particular, the author discusses how the
nature of Hollywood and its distance and exclusion from “centers of life” and true “Blackness”—having as
its only exposure the Black stereotypes to which Black actors and actresses alike conformed in order to be
accepted and get work—created a further barrier between reality and the screen (Cripps 90). Any Blacks or
Goodwin 3
even White allies attempting to correct this ignorance were faced with its sheer magnitude and the
Hollywood fear of box office risk that made what the people would pay to see the only thing to be seen
(Cripps 117). This combined with the tumultuous relationship between Hollywood and the Black audiences
they continually lost faith in (Bogel) maintained a gap between the Black realities of the day and the images
portrayed on the screen despite Hollywood’s popular identity as more “liberal” than the rest of the nation.
This was further complicated by Hollywood’s nature as a recursive scavenger, constantly rehashing and
reviving old stereotypes in new but just as inaccurate ways (Cripps). Indeed, Black individuals and
organizations often found themselves fighting expensive battles against films such as The Birth of a Nation
only to see the same problems crop up in new movies, or their supposed victories against racism on the
screen only accomplishing the removal of Blacks altogether (Cripps 67-69).
Thus, the history and evolution of Blacks in film remains the constant struggle against the history of
stereotypical archetypes constructed in the days of Minstrelsy and the social and political factors of
Hollywood and the nation at large. Black performers’ only option over the ensuing decades was a slow and
difficult evolution, first individualizing these caricatures of “Blackness,” then humanizing them, then posthumanizing them in an attempt to show their hypocrisy or to deal with real issues, and finally towering over
them to reveal the realities of Black identity and experience (Bogel). Each decade saw subtle shifts, both
progressive and regressive, in the way Blacks were presented and utilized on screen—shifts either
generated by purposeful work by successful and motivated Black performers/creators or otherwise
following societal reactions to times of hardship or cultural change such as the Great Depression or World
Wars. In addition, technological or organizational changes in film occasionally made a deep impact, such as
the incorporation of sound leading to a desire for the musical and vocal performances of African Americans
(partially due to the myth that Black voices simply “recorded better” and the White fascination with the
“otherness” of Black language) or the incorporation of independent film houses into the Hollywood
machine, leaving no space for competition from small scale Black enterprise (Cripps 8 & 104). In general,
the 1920’s saw Black characters shift from pure stereotypes to Jesters, to Servants in the 30’s, Entertainers
Goodwin 4
and then “Problem People” in the 40’s, Stars and then Militants in the 50’s and 60’s, Bucks and
Superwomen in the 70’s, and then Tan Superstars in the 80’s before finally beginning to show real cultural
inclusion in the 90’s (Bogle). In each era these small changes contributed to a growing realism in cinematic
presentations of Black culture and experience, with each popular film or film star chipping away at the
stereotypical masks of yesteryear.
For this study, it is important to specifically note the late 60’s and 70’s era of Blaxploitation, socalled because its films “exploited” Black culture and identity or otherwise sensationalized it for profit as
exploitation films have done with subject matters from nudists to cannibalism almost as soon as cinema
began. Blaxploitation was the first time that presenting any aspect of Black culture (however accurately)
was popular with both White and Black audiences and financially successful for filmmakers—and most
certainly the first time there were so many opportunities for Black actors, writers, directors, and even film
crews. The cult following and influences that Blaxploitation films continue to have to this day—as well as
the many remakes of or tributes to era films and their constant use as references in modern works from
Family Guy to Inglorious Bastards—speak to their importance within the history of Blacks in film (James;
“Blaxspoitation”).
Also worth noting is that the modern era of Blacks in film is dominated by two main phenomena—
Black film stars being utilized in roles connected only to their popularity and devoid of race, or films solely
focused on impoverished urban environments or otherwise “gritty” or controversial aspects of the Black
language, culture, or experience. The first phenomenon is an obvious stripping of cultural identity markers,
such as language, entirely, but the second phenomenon while not making films highly accurate or
progressive in terms of real issues at least does this more so than ever before. As always though, Black
performers and filmmakers must contend with the vestiges of Black stereotypes, the ignorance of the
masses propagated by the very medium they wish to utilize, the isolation of Hollywood from social reality,
and the barriers created in the name of the mighty dollar (Bogel).
Goodwin 5
For many people, the presentation of Blacks in film may still the only or the most powerful source
of information they have about Black culture and experience, and due to it historically being one of the few
ways in which such information was presented at all it even influences the Black community’s perception
and understanding of itself. This in turn influences the relationships between Blacks and other groups and
thus can impact the way African Americans are treated on a day-to-day basis as well as on larger sociopolitical levels. As can be seen, film performance is an important avenue of consideration when studying
public perception and understanding of “Blackness.”More importantly for the purposes of this work,
language can be seen as being utilized at the core of this cinematic presentation as one of the strongest
ways films and filmmakers construct the identity and “Blackness” of their characters and settings. This use
makes sense combined with the understanding of how essential African American Language is to Black
culture and indeed, how African Americans themselves utilize AAL to construct their own identities.
Black Language
Among almost all of the reputable literature and scholarship available about African American
Language there consists a definitive consensus about the nature of AAL as a distinctive language apart from
English—sharing a common lexicon but having its own grammatical, structural, and discursive elements and
perhaps most importantly an African origin. In stark contrast to original theories that the Transatlantic
journey destroyed slaves culture and language, leaving them a tabula rasa that absorbed the culture and
language of their new masters and homelands, more recent research has traced shared elements between
the language practices of traditional African tribes and the language of African Americans from slavery to
modern times. As early as 1910 Africanist Carl Meinhoff stated clearly that AAL, “is not in any real sense
English; it is rather a number of English words arranged according to the syntax of Sudan languages”
(Palacas 337). Even physical discursive practices in the African American (AA) community such as “cut-eye”
and “suck teeth” can be attributed with African origins, showing just how strong of a connection AA culture
and communication has to its African heritage (Rickford & Rickford). This history shows that culturally
Goodwin 6
specific language use has been a core element of American “Blackness” from the beginning and thus is an
essential component in studying how “Blackness” is presented.
Particularly due to how deeply intertwined the social dynamics and practices of AAL are, it is a core
element of the AA experience, impacting social rituals and communication both within and outside of the
AA community, from childhood practices of “he-said-she-said” (Morgan 53) to adult undertakings of
“playing the dozens” and “abusin’” (Spears). Indeed, the very fight to legitimize Black language follows the
continued struggle for Black equality, and often small but meaningful words used to label AA’s over the
decades such as “Nigger,” “Negro,” and “Black” have formed the center of debate (Smitherman 41-56). The
interaction between AAL and education is particularly instructive in revealing just how much the Black
experience right from the get-go of elementary school is influenced by their language (Morgan 53), an
effect that follows AA citizens their whole lives in trying to get jobs, apartments, or just downright respect
from their fellow Americans (Green, “African American English” 87). And as society has decided that it is
less and less “acceptable” to discriminate based on race citizens have moved to discriminating on
language—further tying the Language of AA to who they are as people (Zuidema 668).
Despite the fact that AAs themselves disagree about the nature of AAL and its legitimacy (Fasold
268), they never the less continue to utilize it as a large part of constructing their identity. Whether talking
within their own community, the AA community at large, or to outsiders, AAs use AAL to identify
themselves and add legitimacy or other rhetorical effect to their communication—both by using smaller
scale markers like grammar, syntax, and the AAL lexicon, as well as larger scale markers like discursive and
social practices (Alim, We are the streets). This can perhaps be best seen within Hip-Hop music, where
rappers have been shown to rely heavily on AAL to construct their “street” identity and otherwise make
themselves and their music authentic, popular, and relevant (Alim, Hip Hop Nation Language).
Language Markers
For the purposes of this paper, it is relevant to go into greater detail about the specific nature of
the two language markers that will be utilized: the Habitual ‘be’ and the Non or Zero copula. Both have
Goodwin 7
been identified as key differences between AAL and the Language of Wider Communication (LWC), and
have be used as “showcase variables” with which to illuminate these differences.
The Habitual ‘be’ is an example of the way in which African languages and thus AAL communicate
time in a non-inflective but more complex and thus descriptive way (Palacas 46). Lisa Green describes this
use of ‘be’ in her seminal work African American English stating, “Aspectual be… denotes habitual or
iterative meaning; therefore, the activity expressed by the verb… is characterized as recurring” (47), or as
Geneva Smitherman states in Talkin and Testifyin ‘be,’ “[is] mainly used to indicate a condition that occurs
habitually” (19) and that it is in fact omitted if the condition or event does not reoccur. As one would expect
from a complex language system like Ebonics, there is much more to this marker than just expressing a
recursive nature. AAL speakers often use it in conjunction with ‘do’ to add emphasis or utilize a question
form (Smitherman 20), with adverbs to “specify precisely how often the… activity occurs,” or apply it to
inanimate objects to indicate a commonality or majority (Green 50-51). However, caution must be taken so
as to not mistakenly attribute this meaning to all uses of ‘be’ as is often done, owing to the facts that it can
also be utilized to express a future time and that “Black Dialect relies on either the context of the
immediate sentence or the context of an entire conversation” to dictate specific meaning (Smitherman 2025).
The Zero Copula on the other hand is marked by the absence of a copula (forms of “to be” in
English) in between the subject and predicate, so for example “You crazy!” instead of “You are crazy!” This
language phenomenon occurs in several languages across the globe, but within AAL it has specific rules
governing and restricting its use. Discussion of Zero Copula in Talkin and Testifyin states that AAL users omit
be when referring to “static” or “fixed” conditions, and this occurs before nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and
prepositional phrases, but that they must appear in the past tense or in questions “tacked on to sentences”
and other cases where they are required to convey the correct meaning (Smitherman 21). African
American Language speaks more generally about how auxiliaries like be, do, and have can appear in
“contracted, reduced, or zero form,” but the complex rules it presents still essentially boil down to
Goodwin 8
complete absence of the copula only in situations where it unnecessary to convey a specific meaning
(Green 40). It is important to note that this is not the removal or deletion of copulas as has sometimes
been stated by those who believed AAL to be bastardization of the LWC, because the African languages that
AAL are derived from do not have such copulas in the first place (Palacas 328).
Methods
In order to accomplish the goal of ferreting out Blackface remnants in modern film, this study will
look at four specifically chosen movies from two different eras of cinematic history. The first two films have
been selected from the Blaxsploitation era. Much like with Hip-Hop and rap music, a large part of why these
films were considered exploitation was because the genre was quickly taken out of the hands of African
Americans and dominated by White-owned Hollywood as soon as it became profitable (James). Thus, these
films should reflect Blackface practices, as they were largely written and directed by non-Blacks. The
specific flicks utilized for this study are Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song and Shaft, both released in
1971 and were chosen to represent Blaxsploitation in this study for two reasons. First, they are each argued
to be the first “true” example of Blaxsploitation, with Sweet being cited as the progenitor of the genre as a
whole while Shaft iscredited as being closer to actual Blacksploitation owing to its Hollywood financing
(James). This financing is at the core of the second reason for selecting these films, as Sweet was largely
written, directed, and even financed by African American Melvin Van Peebles, and thus their comparison
should yield interesting results regarding the use of AAL and the presence of Figurative Blackface.
Regarding the question of why Blaxsploitation films were selected in lieu of films from the beginning of film
history and closer to literal Blackface, it seemed a more worthwhile and clearer endeavor to study the
changes over four decades rather than eight or nine as well as to pick from an era so rife with “Black”
expression on the silver screen.
To complete the comparison to the modern era, two films were selected from this decade’s
releases: Shaft (2000) and Why Did I Get Married Too? (2010). Shaft was selected specifically because it was
a remake/continuation of the original film with the intent of both capitalizing on the success and cult
Goodwin 9
following of the first Shaft and resetting it into the modern era. Thus the plot, language, and character
interactions have supposedly been updated and thus should provide an interesting comparison. Why, on
the other hand, was chosen primarily because it was written, produced, and directed by Tyler Perry—an
African American actor and Hollywood power player that is often called-out for making “hackneyed
movies” (Johnson) that portray both race and gender in highly stereotypical ways for the sole purpose of
profit (Burell). In a sense, these two films provide a parallel with the Blaxploitation era flicks, because while
both are certainly Hollywood ventures Why was far more “Black” controlled than Shaft in terms of
development staff. In addition, the timing of these two films seems appropriate as one was released near
the beginning of the decade and one near the end.
These four films were watched and analyzed using two major elements: the use of AAL and the
prevalence of Black stereotypical character archetypes. As previously discussed, the language markers of
the Habitual ‘be’ and the Zero Copula have been selected as the variables of analysis due to their almost
universal consideration as showcase variables by AAL scholarship as well as reference sources consulted by
the general public such as Wikipedia (“African America Vernacular English”). In addition, prevalence of
Multiple Negation usage will be tabulated as an additional AAL feature that might be utilized to create
“Blackness,” as well as the use of non-AAL specific reduction and the use of ‘got’ in place of ‘have’ which
are colloquial or non-standard English usages but might be mistakenly used as examples of AAL (in the
sense that Ebonics is often considered as simply “bad” English instead of its own language with specific
rules). Each use of these variables have been documented according to the definitions presented for them
in Lisa Green’s African American English and Geneva Smitherman’s Talkin and Testifyin. The prevalence and
use of these markers will be compared both amongst and between the film eras to determine any potential
changes over time as well as the effect of racial and Hollywood control over the films. As for the analysis of
character archetypes, the five Minstrel-derived stereotypes named in Bogle’s Toms, Coons, Mulattoes.
Mammies, and Bucks will be compared to the characters of each film in order to explore how language and
cultural markers were used in order to create authentic characters, or “Blackfaced” stereotypes, or
Goodwin 10
something in between. In the end, the strength or weakness of the collected data will be translated into a
conclusion about modern use of figurative Blackface and its authenticity and potential impact as compared
to that of the Blaxsploitation era.
Data
Running
Zero-
Time
Copula
97 Mins.
22
Shaft (1971)
100 Mins.
Why Did I Get Married
Sweet Sweetback's
Reduction
Habitual
Multiple
Got
Be
Negation
(Have)
11
2
8
9
15
25
1
3
15
121 Mins.
32
50
2
0
17
99 Mins.
10
31
0
0
14
Baadasssss Song
Too?
Shaft (2000)
Discussion
This discussion will be broken up into specifically focused sections. Each film’s language prevalence
and use along with potential remnants ofMminstrelsy archetypes will first be discussed individually. Then, a
comparison will be made between the two films of each era bringing in larger details of the films, such as
creator identity and specific plot points, in order to make broader and more meaningful connections.
Following this more specific discussion the conclusion will compare the two eras in an attempt to
determine how the presentation of Blacks, Black issues, and “Blackness” in general in film has or has not
changed in the intervening years.
Sweet Sweetback’s Baadassss Song
This film had the lowest running time of the movies studied, and by far the least amount of dialog
(a majority of scenes were camera pans of the setting and happenings set to music by Earth, Wind, and Fire
with small excerpts of dialog peppered in). Yet, the presence of Zero Copula use was high, as was that of
Goodwin 11
Multiple Negations. This is interesting when compared to the relatively low use of reduction and ‘got’
usage—suggesting perhaps a more authentic or purposeful use of AAL features. There were only two uses
of the Habitual Be, though this is somewhat expected owing to the variable’s “infrequency in the corpus of
African American speech” (Alim, “We are the Streets” 46). One of the most interesting elements of
language usage in this film was how little Sweetback himself actually spoke, having only six lines directly
attributed to his character with an average of only 3 words per line. In the third act of the film, where
Sweetback is on foot running from the police, there is a ‘song’ of sorts that is attributed to his character in
the shooting script but is delivered through a voiceover conversation between a singing voice dissimilar
from that of Sweetback’s dialog and a chorus of “Black Angels.” If this is taken to be Sweetback by the
audience then it accounts for the only AAL markers in his speech throughout the entire film; however, the
language presented is extremely simple like the rest of his dialog (mostly three-word phrases as in the
excerpt “come on feet/cruise for me/come on legs/come on run/come on feet/do your thing”), leading this
simplicity and Sweetback’s actions to be the only representation of his character and its “Blackness.” The
fact that almost the entirety of these actions are either extremely violent or sexual (Sweetback essentially
fucks and fights his way through the film) leads to the construction of a classic “Black Buck” (Bogle 13). The
only deeper glimpse into the Black man that is Sweetback is when he tells the motorcyclist who comes to
rescue himself and “Moo-Moo,” the young black man he earlier saved from the police, to rescue the boy
instead as “He’s our future,” an altruistic action made mostly moot by Moo-Moo showing up in a box at the
morgue not fifteen minutes later. Beyond grammatical markers, there was an additional presence of Black
language and culture in the form of a couple small instances of abusin,’ a large amount of repetition and
rhyme, and a strong religious presence throughout the film.
Shaft (1971)
Though with only a slightly longer running time, there were significant differences in the language
usage presented in the original Shaft. Zero Copula use is low (with the main and title character utilizing it
only twice) as is the use of Multiple Negations, while Reduction and ‘got’ usage is fairly high. The latter
Goodwin 12
numbers could be accounted for in the larger amount of dialog used in Shaft, but then one would expect
there to be a greater amount of Zero Copula and Multiple Negations as well. Thus, these numbers can be
said to reflect a smaller and less authentic use of AAL features especially by the main character. This is
possibly compounded by the singular use of Habitual Be by a minor character portrayed as far more
“urban” than Shaft, which as the only example could easily have been unintended. Interestingly, Shaft
makes a direct mention of Black language when a police lieutenant laments that they haven’t been able to
understand the rumblings they’ve been hearing from Harlem, saying that it’s because they speak “Mush
Mouth,” which both of them laugh about. Perhaps only a result of the more complex plot, the language and
subsequent actions presented by Shaft are moderately complex, as are his salient thinking and interactions
with both White and Black characters. That being said, his culminating actions are still rooted in sex and
violence. Even the discursive practices that Shaft occasionally utilizes such as abusin’ revolve around either
sex or violence—for instance when a cop asks him where he’s going his reply is “To get laid, where are you
going? [loud and directed laughter].” There are also a few religious references (Shaft demands he not be
called a “Judas”). In the end, Shaft walks the line between playing a Tom (in fact he is accused of being “in
Whitey’s trough” or something similar several times), a Black Buck (he specifically “lusts” for and gets White
flesh a one point in the film), or something more—but in either case language is a miniscule part of what
constructs his “Blackness.”
Sweet Sweetback’s Baadassss Song vs. Shaft
It cannot be overstated that these were two incredibly different films, and though a small part of
this difference can be attributed to language, the majority of differences came from how they were made.
The fact that Sweet was an independent production and Shaft came out of Hollywood is evident from the
quality and direction of the first frames of each film, but the greater division was in the two completely
different worlds the films presented—specifically in regards to issues of race and their impact on the
characters. The plot proper of Sweet begins with White police officers taking Sweetback to falsely charge
and then drop charges on him for a crime in the interest of settling the public down, then promptly picking
Goodwin 13
up and beating a young Black suspected of being a militant in front of him. Sweetback attacks the officers
and then must fight and run from the White police force for the rest of the film as they beat and violently
interrogate every Black citizen they can find. At one point after the police commissioner warns about an
uprising from “Cop killers and niggers to boot,” he takes two Black men in the office aside and says to them
“I didn’t mean any offense by, aah, that word I used. It’s a figure of speech you understand”—the sole
example of a White person in power even pretending to be sensitive. There are a few examples of White
people helping Sweetback, but they are either homosexuals or hobos considered to be the dregs of society
by the in-power Whites interacting with them.
Shaft on the other hand deals with racism only in a superficial manner—a taxi ignores him for a
White passenger and a cop refers to him as “that kind” only to be corrected by his superior. The majority of
his interactions with the White police force are positive and respectful, and any racist remarks or issues are
generally laughed off by both parties or set up as a joke from the beginning. In fact, the first mention of
race happens as the dialog opens the film between Shaft and a blind White newsman, who jokes that
everyone looks the same to him when Shaft asks if the men he talked to were “Harlem cats.” Indeed, the
plot of the film revolves not around Shaft contending with the police force but rather a Black power-player
and heroin dealer who’s gotten into trouble with the Italian Mafia not because of anything to do with race
but because he pushed into their drug turf—a power player who Shaft works with despite the fact that he
makes obvious how much more money means to him than Black lives. In addition, while Shaft may on the
surface appear to be less of a stereotypical Black Buck than Sweetback, his love of causing chaos and use of
violence still set him up within the confines of the archetype while at the same time his joking deference
and interaction with White characters places him within the realm of a Tom. These factors, along with the
greater prevalence of AAL use in minor characters like shoe shiners, compared to its generally universal
presence in the characters of Sweet, makes plain the strong impact of the “Hollywood bubble’s” ignorance
and refusal to deal with real racial issues discussed in Fade to Black.
Why Did I Get Married Too?
Goodwin 14
Unsurprisingly for a movie centered on relationships and communication, this film had by far the
greatest amount of dialog of those chosen for this study in addition to having the longest run time. This
leads the prevalence of Zero Copula and instances of reduction though as previously stated the latter is not
AAL specific. Again the usage of Habitual ‘be’ was low, and the context of the specific uses cannot 100%
guarantee that the use was intentional. More telling however is the relatively low amount of ‘got’ usage
and the complete absence of Multiple Negations—two language features commonly thought to be simply
“incorrect.” Add to this the fact that the vast majority of the Zero Copula use (23 out of 32) was spoken by a
single character who self-identified as being “from the streets,” and the first example of class-specific use of
AAL in this study becomes apparent.
The main cast consisted of four couples ranging from lower to upper-middle class (the film starts
with a vacation retreat to the Bahamas), and most of the Zero Copula, Reduction, and ‘got’ use was utilized
by one of the couples. This husband and wife were obvious in their use as the film’s comic relief, and with
their argumentative, loud, and inane (all cited as such by the other Black characters) antics they verged
quite close to Bogle’s definition of a Classic Coon and most definitely donned the identity of the Jester
(Bogle 7 & 19). There was also a character that fit rather snugly into the Mammy archetype and even
vestiges of a Tragic Mulatto stereotype were preset in a half-Black half-Asian woman who can’t help herself
but stray from her husband (in fact she is part of a rather crude joke whereby her husband states the “Black
half” of her might be interested in rougher sex but the “Asian half” would call the police)—but neither of
these identities are constructed using AAL.
The rest of AAL language use as well as colloquial markers were utilized by the male characters,
specifically when they were speaking casually and thus could have used for that reason instead of as
authentic AAL. The most upper-middle class couple of the ensemble used no AAL at all but interestingly
enough were often called out for being too closed off and not sharing and “being real” about what was
going on in their relationship. Likely owing to the film’s designation as PG-13 it was the only one without a
use of “Nigger” or “Nigga” by a White or Black character, with the “from the streets” couple being the only
Goodwin 15
ones to instead substitute “Negro”—understandable but still inauthentic. In contrast to the specific use of
grammatical markers, there was an almost universal presence of discursive practices amongst the
ensemble—practices such as abusing,’ religious references, as well as the first instance of “playing the
dozens”—though they were more utilized by the male characters. In sum, it seems that Tyler Perry and
those that helped him to write the script utilized AAL and non-standard English not to construct “Blackness”
in general but rather the “street” or gendered identity of a few characters.
Shaft (2000)
Similar to the running time of its predecessor, the re-envisioning of Shaft also had comparable
marker data, with the only major differences being a third less Zero Copula usage and a complete absence
of Multiple Negations and Habitual ‘be.’ Also in line with the original was how AAL was seldom used by the
main character and instead utilized by the minor (and consistently constructed as poorer and more
“urban”) characters, with the new Shaft only using two Zero Copulas. This film was the first instance of
“Motherfucker” usage, with Shaft himself using it 11 times and other White, Black, and Latino characters
alike using it 14 times (with the Hispanic gang boss shortening it to “motherfuck”)—not particularly
showing a Black specific usage. Similarly, the word “Nigga” was used solely by non-Blacks, instead being
used 6 times by the Hispanic gang characters in an attempt to insult Shaft—passing over the authentic use
of both it and “Nigger” as self-referential terms within the Black community. In addition, more than a third
of the Reduction instances were spoken by White characters(13 out of 31), illuminating how this element
was used as casual or non-raciaalized “urban” language instead of specifically AAL (which might also have
been the case with Why if there were any White characters with significant speaking parts).
Most of the AAL usage in the film was utilized by a younger “Rasta” Black character most certainly
playing the Jester and coming close to the harmless buffoonery of the Coon. Shaft himself was just as close
to a “Black Buck” as his predecessor despite not having a sexual relationship with a White woman (a section
of the film actually has him playing the protector of a White woman a la Shirley Temple and “Bojangles”
Robinson) (Bogle 48). He specifically aims to cause chaos in “The Man’s” system after getting fed up with
Goodwin 16
playing along as a cop and uses excessive violence to get what he wants. There was a definite presence of
AAL discursive and cultural practices such as abusin’ and “playing the dozens” with both the main and
secondary characters, though with only a singular religious reference of a Virgin Mary painting on a female
police officer’s bullet-proof vest.
There was also a distinct presence of specific racial terminology such as “cracker,” “Billy-Bob
Motherfucker,” “Kentucky Fried Chicken Motherfucker,” and “Cornbread”—and while these were taken
more seriously than racial mentions in the original Shaft they were still for the most part laughed off by
both parties. This can be seen in an example of another specific mention of language issues when a White
cop asks Shaft “How’d I sound” after pretending to be a Black mugger and shouting “Freeze mofo ‘for I bust
a cap in your dome!,” and just receiving laughter and being called a “Notorious P.I.G.” in return. This is also
one example of the AAL practice of cultural or community referencing used solely in this film, with another
being Shaft’s picking up a shotgun and announcing to the laughter of his Black female police counterpart
that “it’s Guiliani time” (meaning it’s time to clean up the streets).
Why Did I Get Married Too vs. Shaft
Though both films could be considered “Hollywood controlled” ventures, there is still a high degree
of difference in the worlds they present much like those of the Blaxsploitation era. What is interesting
however is that these differences are in a sense reversed—meaning that the more “Black” controlled film of
Tyler Perry presented a much more restricted and issue free world than Shaft which had both White and
Black creators at the helm. Why presented the world of its characters almost exactly like the original Blackmade and targeted films did—a world inhabited almost solely by Black characters and thus devoid of issues
of racism and inequality (Bogle). There are jokes about race (including many gendered references and
sarcastic comments about crack cocaine usage) and plenty of conflict, but it’s all situated solely within Black
interaction. The only mention of race at all by a White character is when a neighbor quickly and confusingly
mentions how she doesn’t like the way one of the Black character’s Hispanic gardener looks at her, a
comment glossed over completely and an example of racism in fact echoed when that same Black character
Goodwin 17
finds the gardener in her bed with her Hispanic (of course) maid. Real life issues such as the difficulties of
finding a job and substance/domestic abuse are brought up but again devoid of any racial context—on one
hand potentially progressive but on the other potentially inauthentic and issue avoiding.
In comparison Shaft targets racism and inequality straight from the get-go, as the film opens with
Shaft arriving to the scene of a hate crime perpetrated by a young rich White male and proceeds to develop
around the issue of getting the charges to stick in an unjust world. Despite this somewhat heavy-handed
exploration, Shaft actually manages to depict race and equality issues with both subtlety and complexity.
Police corruption is shown to come both from White and Black officers, Blacks make as many racial
statements about Whites as they receive, and there is even the first positive portrayal of a White-Black
romantic relationship (although the Black male is the one murdered in the hate crime). The issue of racial
versus social loyalty is even discussed when Shaft is asked to pick between being “Black or Blue” in
reference to following the orders of his department or breaking the rules and following his desire to help
his fellow African Americans. Perhaps most telling is that the two definitive Jester-ish buffoons of the film
are a White and Black pair of corrupt cops who end up failing time and time again to do the dirty work not
of “The Man” but of the Hispanic gangster—though it isn’t particularly progressive to merely shift the villain
away from White power to minority criminals. In addition, the film’s message about doing whatever it takes
to bring a murdering racist to justice is somewhat contradicted when, after Shaft has finally tracked down
and convinced an important witness to testify and the judicial system is finally ready to give a fair trial, the
mother of the murdered Black youth takes it upon herself to shoot the killer right before the trial takes
place. This illuminates how the system can so tragically fail the people but rendering all the work Shaft has
undertaken fairly meaningless. All of this potential progressivism aside, however, the language use in both
of these films cannot be said to be forward thinking or truly authentic—as both scripts utilize AAL markers
in dialog to construct “urban” or “street” Black identity and do not utilize character code-switching to make
such a specific prevalence accurate as well as lack a great deal of other language features and markers that
should be present.
Goodwin 18
Conclusion
Due to the various runtimes, amounts of dialog, subject matters, and purposes of the films
analyzed it is difficult to conclude a distinct difference between the eras solely from AAL prevalence and
use. However, considering this data in correlation to the larger details of creator identity, plot points,
evidence of Blackface-era stereotypes, and other ways in which “Blackness” was constructed, considered,
discussed, and presented in these movies does allow for some conclusions to be made about the
possibilities of what has and hasn’t changed for Blacks in film. This in and of itself points to a conclusion—
that language use is but a small part of the relevant factors in the study of Blacks on the silver screen.
On the positive side it can be said that that modern Black characters—though they still contain
vestiges of Minstrel era stereotypes—have become a great deal more complex since the Blaxploitation era.
Shaft and the other Black characters in the modern reenvisioning were much less one-dimensional than
those of the original, and most certainly more complete than the almost voiceless Sweetback. The world
presented in the 2000 release of Shaft was also more complex and diverse than that of either the original
Shaft or Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song. Even the stereotypical characters that are presented have
moved that much closer to breaking free of their archetypical bonds in the same way that the issues
illuminated have become just a bit less superficial.
These examples of progress however are somewhat diminished by a film like Why Did I Get Married
Too? which avoids real issues altogether by sequestering its cast in an inauthentic world and playing on old
stereotypes to create a laugh. This film by Tyler Perry is actually one of the better regarded of his work,
with his comedies being harshly critiqued by reviewers and researchers alike as being an example of when
“black people pull the trigger for our own image assassination” (Burell). Perry responded to similar criticism
from the press and Spike Lee in particular in a 60 Minutes interview saying “It is so insulting. It's attitudes
like that, that make Hollywood think that these people do not exist, and that is why there is no material
speaking to them, speaking to us,” and while this may be true it is difficult from this singular example to say
that his films further public understanding of true Black identity or the state of Black equality.
Goodwin 19
In either case though, the use of AAL has appeared to have stagnated or at worst gone downhill, as
in both modern films there was less diversity of language markers and the ones presented were utilized to
show “street” or “urban” identity rather than authentic “Blackness.” The correlation between Hollywood
and independently controlled films that seemed salient in the Blaxploitation era seems to have evaporated
since, because although Sweet had more authentic use than the original Shaft, the remake shows at least a
little more authenticity than the Tyler Perry vehicle. That being said, none of the films can be definitively
said to have used language features of African Americans purposefully as Figurative Blackface, nor was
language or other cultural features used to create a cut and dry archetype from the Minstrel era.
Though not contained within the original scope of this project, it seems irresponsible to not
mention some of the interesting and somewhat disappointing trends seen with the presentation of both
female and homosexual characters in these films. Both Bogle’s text and Slow Fade to Black make plain that
for the greater part of cinematic history Black women have been presented one-dimensionally as either
sexual, maternal, or tragic objects. This was most certainly the case for both the Blaxsplotiation era films,
with the only females in Sweet Sweetback’s Baadassss Song being portrayed as whores, having sex, or a
singular instance of a mother with a cadre of orphans, and mostly the same being true for Shaft where in
fact the ending punch line is at the expense of a woman who earlier made a frustrated comment about how
poorly Shaft treated her after sex. The female characters portrayed in the modern version of Shaft were
definitely more evolved and complex than those of the older films, but in large part they were still onedimensional—either the damsel in distress, grieving mother, or a singular instance of a tough cop who was
still a solidly simple and minor character. The African American women of Why Did I Get Married Too? were
better developed than in any other film, but still not as much as the male characters. In addition, their
complexities weren’t always for the better, for out of the four characters: one was a suspicious,
argumentative stay at home mom and Coon archetype created for entertainment; one was a tragic mulatto
who while at first seemed progressively portrayed as a lawyer and a voice of reason is eventually revealed
as having strayed from her middle-class husband with an upper middle-class colleague; another was again
Goodwin 20
initially portrayed as a strong willed doctor but after going through a messy divorce conflict ends up
breaking every piece of glass in her home with a golf club a la Tiger Woods’ wife; and the only the final
female shows some promise of breaking out of her initial Mammy archetype into a rational and
independent woman. Perhaps the most damning slight is when at the end of the film one of the women
ends up accidentally causing her husband to get in a fatal car crash after an argument, and after a clichéd
“one year later” jump she goes from still grieving to all set to start dating again as soon as she sees her
handsome potential suitor played by “The Rock” Dywane Johnson.
Though only a minor part of the films, stereotyped homosexuals and/or homosexuality was utilized
by all four as either comic relief or a form of insult. Oddly enough, Sweet Sweetback’s Baadassss Song had
perhaps the most progressive presentation of homosexuality as they are shown being an accepted part of a
Black brothel community and both Black and White gays are show solidarity by refusing to reveal
Sweetback’s location. This is sadly contrasted by their representation in Why Did I Get Married Too? where
a young, black, stereotypically gay male is used as a form of revenge by one of the wives by putting him in
shiny clothes inside of a hollow cake and bringing him as a “birthday present” to her husband’s workplace.
These less than progressive portrayals of women and homosexuals, combined with the lingering
vestiges of Blackface Minstrel archetypes and the less than authentic or complete AAL usage make a clear
case of the need for more effort to be made towards the betterment of Black film and Blacks in film. And
while none of the four films studied could be expected to convey the entirety of “Blackness” or the Black
experience to viewers, presenting a fuller and more authentic picture doesn’t seem like too much to ask.
Implications for Future Research
This study and specifically the strength (or lack thereof) of the data acquired leads to a myriad of
implications for purposeful and effective study of how “Blackness” is presented in film. For one, AAL is seen
to be but one small part of how filmmakers and script writers construct racial identity—as a greater
emphasis seems to be made on slang and other non-standard English usage as more immediately salient
language markers. At the same time, identity is constructed far more purposefully by character appearance,
Goodwin 21
action, and interaction—that is to say when and if racial identity is constructed purposefully at all. A
comprehensive exploration would need to document and compare the use of all of these elements in order
make any solid conclusions about a single film let alone between films or time periods.
In the same way the specific subject matters, amounts of dialog, creative control, performers, and
many other factors of a specific film make a much larger impact on the racial, gendered, and personal
identity constructions than anything else, and thus are essential to consider both when selecting and
analyzing films. In order for acquired data to be considered in a meaningful and effective manner it may be
necessary to select films wherein these highly impactful elements align with one another, or else construct
an analysis methodology which mitigates the differences they create, unless those differences are the
specific purpose of study. Such considerations may indeed be far more important than those of era and
release dates, as while Hollywood and film as a whole may be said to evolve over time, the impact and
presence of such evolution is entirely dependent on specific films, their genre, targeted audience, and
creative controllers.
Finally, if one is to undertake language analysis specifically, two language factors whether showcase
variables or not, are simply insufficient, due both to the complexity of language selection and use and the
inherent differences between films. Even with the inclusion of other language factors such as Multiple
Negation, Reduction, Static Tenses, and other non-grammatical elements, the data collected for this study
felt like an incredibly sparse pool from which to draw conclusions. Such an undertaking would require a
larger selection of AAL variables with an understanding of their typical prevalence in speech as well as a
larger sample set of films—in addition to a comparison of their use in relation to LWC and non-standard
English as well as a consideration of specific language use between core identities of race, class, gender,
and employment along with cinematic factors such as the purposeful use of characters for the sake of plot
or entertainment. Perhaps most importantly, successfully completing such a complex analysis would
require a much greater understanding of and experience with the language and film elements, history, and
methodology involved.
Goodwin 22
Works Cited
“African American Vernacular English.” Wikipedia.com. Wikipedia Foundation Inc. n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2010.
Alim, H. Samy. “Hip Hop Nation Language.” Eds. Edward Finegan and John Rickford. Language in the USA:
Themes for the Twenty First Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2004. Course Pack.
Alim, H. Samy. “’We are the Streets.’: African American Language and the Strategic Construction of a Street
Concious Identity.” Black Linguistics. Eds. Makomi, Smitherman, Ball, and Spears. New York:
Routledge. 2003. Course Pack.
“Blaxsploitation.” Wikipedia.com. Wikipedia Foundation Inc. n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2010.
Bogle, Donald. Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies, and Bucks: An Interpretive History of Blacks in American
Films. New York: Continuum Publishing. 1994. Print.
Burrell, Tom. Brainwashed: Challenging the Myth of Black Inferiority. New York: Smileybooks. 2001. Print.
Cripps, Thomas. Slow Fade to Black: The Negro in American Film, 1900-1942. New York: Oxford University
Press. 1977. Print.
Fasold, Ralph. “Ebonics Need Not Be English.” Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and
Linguistics 1999. Eds. James Alatis ad Ai-Hui Tan. Georgetown University Press. 2001. Course Pack.
Green, Linda. “African American English.” Eds. Edward Finegan and John Rickford. Language in the USA:
Themes for the Twenty First Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2004. Course Pack.
Green, Lisa. African American English: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: University Press. 2002. Print.
Shaft. Dir. Gordan Parks. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1971. DVD.
Shaft. Dir. John Singleton. Paramount Pictures, 2000. DVD.
Sweet Sweetback’s Baadassss Song. Dir. Melvin Van Peebles. Cinemation Industries, 1971. DVD.
Smitherman, Geneva. Talkin and Testifyin: The Language of Black America. Detroit: Wayne State
University Press. 1977. Print.
James, Darius. That's Blaxploitation!: Roots of the Baadasssss 'Tude (Rated X by an All-Whyte Jury). New
York: St. Martin’s Griffin. 1995. Print.
Goodwin 23
Johnson, Kevin. “Tyler Perry’s Best Still Isn’t Good Enough.” Go! Magazine. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. 5 Nov.
2010. Print.
Mahar, William. Behind the Burnt Cork Mask: Early Blackface Minstrelsy and Antebellum American Popular
Culture. Illinois: University of Illinois Press. 2004. Print
Palacas, Arthur. “Liberating American Ebonics from Euro-English.” College English. Vol. 63, No. 3. 2001.
Course Pack.
Rickford, John & Angela. “Cut Eye and Suck-Teeth: African Words ad Gestures in New World Guise.” African
American Vernacular English. Blackwell. 1999. Course Pack.
Spears, Arthur. “Directness in the Use of African American.” Sociocultural and Historical Contexts of African
American English. Eds. Sonja Lanehart & John Benjamins. 2001. Course Pack.
Sweet, Frank. A History of the Minstrel Show. Palm Coast, Florida: Backintyme. 2000. Print.
Watkins, Mel. On the Real Side: A History of African American Comedy from Slavery to Chris Rock. Chicago:
Lawrence Hill Books. 1999. Print.
Why Did I Get Married Too? Dir. Tyler Perry. The Tyler Perry Company, 2010. DVD.
Zuidema, Leah. “Myth Education: Rationale and Strategies for Teaching Against Linguistic Prejudice.”
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. Vol. 48, No. 3. 2009. Course Pack.